- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Hanna T. Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Only two sources available, one is encyclopaedia and another is death news. — Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - these sources are sufficient. Why are you putting this up for AfD when the subject is in both the Jewish Women's Archive and had an NYT obituary? Kazamzam (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The NY Times obit opens by saying that she "gained international recognition in her 41 years at the Brooklyn Museum for innovative work on the museum's role in education and in the community". It's clear from this source and the Jewish Women's Archive that she meets criterion 2 of WP:ANYBIO. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Kazamzam and Chocmilk. I would WP:AGF though, seeing that nom has been working in deletion. StonyBrook babble 20:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely; I'm not familiar with the Jewish Women's Archive but it does look like a tertiary source so can understand why the nominator discounted it. It cites the NY Times obituary and something called "WWWIA 7"; not sure what that is but if someone knows it could be good to see whether that's something to add to the article. Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That tertiary source is the Encyclopedia of Jewish Women - encyclopedia coverage is typically a pass of WP:ANYBIO #3, so shouldn't be discounted. -- asilvering (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The Two NYT sources are solid, the rest help show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, no valid reasons for deletion as a quick BEFORE identifies other items to add. Also, NYT makes a clear case for notability as is their choice to run an obit. Star Mississippi 21:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Two sources are sufficient for a new article. In fact, one source works if it's a new article still being worked on. This looks like the first article for a new Wikipedian. The basics are there, along with sources. Let's not bite the newbies, please. — Maile (talk) 01:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Nom focuses in the intro on references, while by WP:NEXIST they should have focused on sources. It's a major misunderstanding of how notability works. Moreover, two valid references are also sufficient for the WP:GNG. In conclusion, no valid reason for deletion was brought forward. gidonb (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Why was this even nominated? MaskedSinger (talk) 11:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep: Was created by a new editor using bare URL links, which can subject an article to an AFD in error by new page patrol folks, but notability not in doubt.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep. Clearly meets GNG, consensus to keep is basically unanimous. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.